No, we have not filed such proposals. In the case of
the MEG, e.g., all five
of us have worked extensively in aerospace for many years, and we are
familiar with most of the "ropes" -- not just what makes the paper,
but what
also goes on behind the scene.

Simply put, in most cases no inventor with an early invention and any
real
knowledge at all can afford to work with an agency of the U.S.
government.
Those agencies all file patents, for goodness sakes! Simply ask Larry
Fullerton, of Time Domain, about his experiences, etc. Or try looking
at the
sly little DARPA contract clause "reserving march-in rights". One
bureaucrat
issues one memorandum, stating that the inventor(s) is (are) not
getting the
invention out onto the market fast enough for the government's needs.
So the
government exercises its "march-in" rights. It seizes the patent,
assigns it
to a favored big contractor, and away they go.

Also, try looking into the cases where that has been done, and try to
find
any compensation for the inventor!

Isn't it odd that government agencies producing WRITTEN intellectual
property rights (reports, books, etc.) in their official government
capacity, and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, cannot copyright that
work --
and yet they can and do copyright intellectual property rights on
INVENTIONS, even though the work was also paid for by the U.S.
taxpayer.
Think about that for a moment, and one can readily see the possibility
of
abuse.

Government agencies and their staffs are in competition with
inventors!
Anyone who knows the behind-the-scenes nature of the beast, easily
recognizes the wonderful opportunities this gives those bureaucrats
seeking
personal power (and sometimes even making understood arrangements with
their
own favored contractor). In short, in some cases it works like this:
the
bureaucrat has an "arrangement" with his favored contractor,
completely
under the table. He diverts enough business to this favored
contractor, then
retires early, goes to work for a contractor -- guess who! That same
contractor -- with lucrative stock bonuses etc., and voila! He is an
instant
millionaire.

In many folks' opinion, at least 15% of U.S. government contracting is
corrupt, to one extent or another. That should not be a surprise; at
least
15% of private contracting is also "dirty". That should surprise no
one
since the Enron scandal, etc. If one works for a large U.S. contractor
with
real economic clout, the company is equipped to deal with that
situation,
and usually can get a fare shake. But if one is an independent
inventor or a
small group of inventors, forget it. Then that inventor or those
inventors
are just so much gullible bait for the real piranhas.

It's even getting very difficult (and nearly impossible) for an
independent
inventor to work with a university, unless he just shares his
invention
rights with them. In short, the university will usually sign an
information
nondisclosure agreement, but not a noncircumvention agreement. A
private
inventor has to have both, or he's out of business very shortly.

In such a situation, the private inventor is thus essentially
compelled to
go the "venture capital" route, and seek venture capital. That too is
a
mixed bag; sometimes the inventor is successful and gets a fair and
equitable funding deal; other times he runs into a whipsaw that
destroys the
project. In the field of "energy from the vacuum", the likelihood of
getting
a "straight deal" is vanishingly small, unless the inventor has
already
successfully produced pre-production prototypes and arduously paid for
all
the research up to that "nearly final" point. Of course, once one gets
to
that point with energy from the vacuum devices, one could just use
licensing
with required advances to raise the necessary capital.

I personally suspect that the "field that is not yet a field" of
overunity
EM systems taking their energy from the vacuum, will not succeed until
philanthropic financing is forthcoming. Over the last century, e.g.,
there
have been at least 70 legitimate systems of such nature invented. Not
one of
them has yet made it onto the world market.

Understand, any such novel new field attracts con artists also. So the
so-called "field" is not pure itself by any means.

Another (and the greatest) barrier is the horribly flawed, decrepit
old
electrical engineering model that power engineers use. Many of the
gross
foundations errors in it have been pointed out by leading scientists
such as
Feynman, Wheeler, etc. Yet not a one of those terrible flaws has been
corrected yet! The National Academy of Sciences will not do it, the
National
Science Foundation will not, the national laboratories will not, the
universities will not, and the large scientific associations will not.

So that is the situation. There really isn't very much a struggling
inventor
can do about all that. If the NAS and NSF don't give a hoot that the
EE
model they propagate still assumes the hoary old material ether, more
than a
century after its falsification in 1887, then the inventor cannot
change
that. (The material ether assumption is maintained by the false
assumption
of the force field in mass-free space; force occurs only in mass
systems,
never in free space.)

The archaic EE model also still assumes a flat spacetime (falsified
since
1916), and an inert vacuum (falsified since at least 1930). The
fundamental
basic mechanics model also teaches and assumes a separate force in
mass-free
space, acting on a mass, and that has been wrong for about 400 years.

Thermodynamics also has some hoary old residues that are wrong; e.g.,
it
erroneously equates change of the magnitude of a system external
parameter
(such as potential) as being work a priori. That is false; work is
done only
when the FORM of the energy transfer input is changed. Extra energy
transfer
in the same form, and its collection in the same form, is just
regauging and
is work-free. If the energy is input by simply flowing in the
potential, no
work is done. In the real world, one can do it with only a little
current,
and so one pays only a little work for change of lots of potential
energy in
the circuit.

The hoary old second law of thermodynamics --- which is an oxymoron
assuming
its own negation has previously occurred --- actually only applies to
equilibrium systems. Rigorously it does not apply to nonequilibrium
systems,
even steady state nonequilibrium systems. "Positive entropy", simply
put, is
just a measure of the energy formerly possessed and controlled by the
system, that has been lost from the system's control. If we are to be
consistent in terminology, then "negative entropy" would be just the
"negative" of positive entropy. It would be a measure of the energy
previously not possessed by the system and controlled by it, that has
now
become possessed and controlled by that system. Energy input and
collection,
by themselves, then become negentropic.

Every time one throws a light switch to potentialize the light
circuit, one
actually applies excess input energy to that "circuit" or system, so
that
the system itself has a negative entropy input (of potential, in the
same
form it uses). It thus acquires some new energy under its control,
negentropically, and it can then dissipate that controlled energy
(entropically) to illuminate the lamp. Actually we just described
Prigogine's "dissipative system" in simple terms.

In this highly simplified view of negative entropy, any steady state
nonequilibrium working system is receiving input negative entropy at
the
same rate that it is producing (outputting) positive entropy. Hence
the
system continuously just remains energized to the same degree, while
steadily performing work and steadily receiving and processing the
required
energy.

Note that it doesn't matter what inputs the required energy/negative
entropy. The operator can do it from the power line and pay for it, or
he
can let a windmill-driven generator do it and not pay directly for the
energy. He will, of course, have to pay for the maintenance and upkeep
of
that "converter" that freely inputs the basic environmental wind
energy,
because the converter has to perform work in order to change wind
energy
into electrical energy. But the operator doesn't have to pay for the
fundamental input of the energy --- just as he doesn't have to pay for
the
solar radiation energy that is freely input to a solar cell in this
same
"negentropic" input fashion (simplified view).

Anyway, so long as our major power engineering models remain terribly
flawed, and as long as the organized scientific community adamantly
propagates them and vehemently attacks any student, post doc, etc. who
tries
to make corrections to them or point out their errors, then we will
continue
to have flawed power systems which actually already take their local
energy
out of the local vacuum, but which insanely use half that freely
collected
"energy from the vacuum via the charge converters" to destroy the
dipolarity of the distant generator in the power system, thereby
requiring
that mechanical energy constantly be fed into the shaft of the
generators to
restore the dipole. Again, we simply pay the power company to engage
in a
giant wrestling match inside their generators and LOSE.

So long as the academic community ignores the long-suppressed source
charge
problem (how it provides the energy to make and replenish its
associated EM
fields and potentials), just so long will the academic community
adamantly
attack and oppose any invention proposing to take its energy from the
vacuum.

Note that EEs do not calculate an actual E-field, e.g., and they never
have
--- though all purport to. Rigorously, they calculate the intensity of
the
ongoing interaction of the "force-free E-field as it exists in
massless
space", with static charged matter. Simply examine the "definition" of
the
electric field intensity: E = F/q. That at best is a "measure" of the
intensity of that ongoing interaction of the "real" force-free
E-field; it
has NOTHING to do with the so-called "magnitude of the E-field
itself".

Actually, a field or potential is also a set of free energy flows (as
shown
by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904), flowing freely from their source
charges
which also freely extracted all that energy from the seething vacuum
in the
first place. So the EE calculates what rigorously is called "electric
field
intensity", never realizing that the same "E-field" will have a
different
"electric field intensity" if it interacts with self-oscillating
particles
with charge. The latter case changes the intensity of that actual
interaction, and so it yields the well-known "negative resonance
absorption
of the medium" effect, where the thermodynamic COP = 18. But I've not
yet
found a single paper that discusses the THERMODYNAMICS of that
question.
Those scientists keep very conservative in their use of terms, hence
using
"negative resonance absorption" and seldom mentioning that it is
really
"excess resonance emission". That way they do not seem to pose a
"threat"
to the great vested interests of the energy domain. So they can "keep
on
doing their thing", and the system lets them do it.

Anyway, hope this sheds a little light on your question and why we
haven't
bothered very much at all with approaching such government agencies.
We do
have one U.S. government agency we would very much like to work with,
but
that will only be possible after we ourselves have gotten venture
capital
research funding and finished the project to the "ready-for-production
series of prototypes" stage. Then a legitimate program can be funded
and
conducted. It's that year of very hard and expensive work we need to
get to
that point, that is the problem!

The science and government communities give lots of lip service to
"innovative thinking and approaches". In actual practice, the system
tends
very much to destroy most innovation, because it would be a serious
threat
to the status quo (and therefore to the rice bowls of many of those
directing the upper levels of projects).

And as we pointed out in our book, Energy from the Vacuum, sadly it's
always
been that way in science (any historian of science can give you many
examples). Max Planck summed it up nicely when he stated,

"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul
becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die
out, and
that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the
beginning." [Max Planck, in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific
Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]

The scientific community has been doing that suppression for a long
time.
E.g.:

"Every great scientific truth goes through three stages. First, people
say
it conflicts with the Bible. Next they say it had been discovered
before.
Lastly they say they have always believed it." [Louis Agassiz,
1807-1873].

"There are three steps in the history of a great discovery. First, its
opponents say that the discoverer is crazy; later that he is sane but
that
his discovery is of no real importance; and last, that the discovery
is
important but everybody has known it right along." [Sigmund Freud].

Roger Bacon said it a LONG time ago, back when "scientists" were still
called "natural philosophers"! He stated:

"Most secrets of knowledge have been discovered by plain and neglected
men
[rather] than by men of popular fame. And this is so with good reason.
For
the men of popular fame are busy on popular matters." [Roger Bacon,
English
Natural Philosopher, C. 1220-1292].

Arthur C. Clarke stated it very beautifully:

"If they [quantum fluctuations of vacuum] can be [tapped], the impact
upon
our civilization will be incalculable. Oil, coal, nuclear, hydropower,
would
become obsolete - and so would many of our worries about environmental
pollution." "Don't sell your oil shares yet -- but don't be surprised
if the
world again witnesses the four stages of response to any new and
revolutionary development: 1. It's crazy! 2. It may be possible -- so
what?
3. I said it was a good idea all along. 4. I thought of it first."
[Arthur
C. Clarke, in "Space Drive: A Fantasy That Could Become Reality" NSS
... AD
ASTRA, Nov/Dec 1994, p. 38.]

Anyway, if and when federal agencies such as NASA will and do provide
protection for the inventor to retain his invention, by giving a
noncircumvention clause, then perhaps inventors will be able to work
with
agencies of the federal government. In the background experience of
our
group of five, we have not found that such protection is reasonably
offered,
nor is it granted in practice.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Have you guys tried applying for funds from the NASA Institute of
Advanced
Concepts? Your work sounds like the sort of thing they might fund -
sort
of in the "so crazy it just might work" category :) http://www.niac.usra.edu/